If You're Anti-Fracking, Then You’re Anti-Renewables

[RugersGR8]

Facts like these will be totally lost on the GW'ers, CC'ers and the lib dem agenda advancers.

http://www.shaledirectories.com/blog/anti-fracking-youre-anti-renewables/
Anti-Fracking, You’re Anti-Renewables
August 16, 2016 Joseph Barone

..."Bottom line: To be against fracking is to be against renewable energy, Kallanish Energy finds. In their survey of 26 Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the economists found natural gas and renewable power generation increase in nearly a one-to-one ratio."...

 

[dennishoddy]

That's a little technicality that the greenies miss.
You must have base load.

 

[1mathom1]

Would be totally lost on my neighbor. Has rants about big oil and fracking..... signs up in his yard "No Fracking" and "Stop Drilling"...blah, blah. Raves about wind power, etc.

But....he drives only natural gas powered cars and raves about the benefits of them.

 

[tomthebaker]

Good article

 

[Catt57]

That's great info, but I'm also anti-my-house-falling-down.....

Now I don't pretend that we don't need fossil fuels, but we do need more advances in renewable energy technology to broaden our energy options, generate the increased output needed for future generations, and to diminish the risks associated with collecting fossil fuel sources by diminishing their need.

 

[Shadowrider]

That's great info, but I'm also anti-my-house-falling-down.....

Now I don't pretend that we don't need fossil fuels, but we do need more advances in renewable energy technology to broaden our energy options, generate the increased output needed for future generations, and to diminish the risks associated with collecting fossil fuel sources by diminishing their need.

I've been hearing this my whole life. I fail to see the "why" in it. Why do we need to replace our energy which is cheap, efficient and plentiful? The diatribe that we are killing the planet isn't going to fly, if we were doing that we'd all already be dead.

 

[Catt57]

I've been hearing this my whole life. I fail to see the "why" in it. Why do we need to replace our energy which is cheap, efficient and plentiful? The diatribe that we are killing the planet isn't going to fly, if we were doing that we'd all already be dead.

To me it's not about replacement. It's more about not having all of your eggs in one basket. Any time you have a reliance on a single source or method there is no fault tolerance in it. With multiple sources and multiple technologies there is improved disaster proofing and recovery. It's like playing golf with a single club and golf ball. Break the club or loose the ball and the game is over.

 

[donner]

I've been hearing this my whole life. I fail to see the "why" in it. Why do we need to replace our energy which is cheap, efficient and plentiful? The diatribe that we are killing the planet isn't going to fly, if we were doing that we'd all already be dead.

Cheap, efficient and plentiful, but at a cost. There certainly are a lot of benefits, as you mentioned, but they do come with problems. Just look at many large cities and to pollution created from car exhaust and the health issues associated with them. While they might not affect many of us directly, the problems are there.

I agree that the problems probably aren't as drastic as commonly presented, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be working on alternatives (or simply updating the current technologies even).

Oh, and just because something is renewable does not mean it's without problems, too.

 

[Shadowrider]

To me it's not about replacement. It's more about not having all of your eggs in one basket. Any time you have a reliance on a single source or method there is no fault tolerance in it. With multiple sources and multiple technologies there is improved disaster proofing and recovery. It's like playing golf with a single club and golf ball. Break the club or loose the ball and the game is over.

Eggs in one basket? We can generate power with wind (somewhat reliable), solar (not anywhere near worth the cost and still requires hydrocarbon fuel supplement), nuke, hydro, fuel oil, nat gas or coal. Some plants are dual fuel capable. Some of those will fall off the cliff if we dump the .gov subsidies but even so, we still have redundancy.

 

[Catt57]

Eggs in one basket? We can generate power with wind (somewhat reliable), solar (not anywhere near worth the cost and still requires hydrocarbon fuel supplement), nuke, hydro, fuel oil, nat gas or coal. Some plants are dual fuel capable. Some of those will fall off the cliff if we dump the .gov subsidies but even so, we still have redundancy.

This is true. And I apologize for not being clear. Most of those sources all still have a single distribution hub, the National power grid. How many of those sources are readily available to small scale production, are portable, and can be readily implemented by anyone that wants independence from the utility grid, a long term backup power source, or lives in an area where a power grid is not in place? I'm saying we need to encourage advancement in the areas of mobile and personal power generation so the we are not relying solely on a national power grid as a single source anymore.

FYI, not I'm not an off-the-grid nut, I just think that a distributed or even individual power system in coexistence with the national power grid offers better catastrophe proofing and flexibility. And at this time the only technologies that show promise to do this are Wind power, Solar, and possibly Hydro power.